9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (3) TMI 395 - HC - Income TaxReopening of assessment u/s 147 - alternative and efficacious remedy - HELD THAT - In the existence of an alternative and efficacious remedy, it would be improper for a writ court to exercise its jurisdiction. The question of whether the notice issued under Section 147 of the Act is justified or not is once again a question of fact. As questions of fact cannot be gone into by a writ court, it would necessarily have to be done by the concerned authorities. Even assuming that the learned Single Judge exercised the writ jurisdiction, then a reference as to why the alternative remedy is not an efficacious remedy would have to spelt out. Even on considering the alternative and efficacious remedy, we do not find that the rights of the petitioner are infringed only because he has to file an appeal against the said order. We are of the view that there is no reason to interfere with the well considered order passed by the learned Single Judge. Hence, the writ appeal is dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Challenge to dismissal of writ petition against reassessment order by learned Single Judge. 2. Alleged breach of principles of natural justice by assessing authority. 3. Availability of alternative and efficacious remedy for the petitioner. 4. Interpretation of judgments by Hon'ble Supreme Court on the jurisdiction of writ courts. Issue 1: Challenge to Dismissal of Writ Petition The petitioner, a Malaysian company, challenged a reassessment order by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax for the assessment year 2009-10. The petitioner contended before the Single Judge that there was a breach of natural justice due to non-service of statutory notices and lack of opportunity to raise objections. The Single Judge noted the petitioner's non-cooperation in tax proceedings, including failure to obtain a PAN number. The Single Judge dismissed the writ petition, stating that the petitioner had an alternative and efficacious remedy of filing an appeal, making the exercise of writ jurisdiction unnecessary. Issue 2: Alleged Breach of Principles of Natural Justice The petitioner argued that they did not receive notices at their Malaysian address and only became aware of proceedings in December 2017. The Single Judge observed the petitioner's lack of cooperation and concluded that there was no violation of natural justice principles. The petitioner's avoidance of approaching authorities and the availability of an alternative remedy were key factors in the dismissal of the writ petition. Issue 3: Availability of Alternative Remedy The appellant contended that the Single Judge's order was incorrect and relied on the Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. case, arguing that the jurisdiction issue warranted the writ court's consideration. However, the High Court found the appellant's reliance on this case misplaced, emphasizing the importance of an alternative and efficacious remedy. The court highlighted that the question of jurisdiction was distinct from the availability of an alternative remedy, which, when present, should take precedence. Issue 4: Interpretation of Supreme Court Judgments Various judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court were cited by both parties to support their arguments. The High Court analyzed these judgments, including the Madhya Pradesh Industries Ltd. case and the Godrej Sara Lee Limited case, to determine the applicability of alternative remedies in the present case. The court concluded that in the presence of an alternative and efficacious remedy, the writ court should refrain from exercising jurisdiction, as the petitioner's right to appeal against the order was not infringed solely by the appeal process. In conclusion, the High Court upheld the Single Judge's order, emphasizing the importance of alternative remedies and dismissing the writ appeal. The court directed the authorities to handle the deposited amount as per legal procedures and rejected any pending applications.
|
